By Lewis Loflin
In 2007, I ignited a letter war in the *Kingsport Times-News* by challenging global warming hype—a hot issue as Congress debated coal-crushing laws. Raised in Appalachia’s coal fields, I saw economic stakes drowned out by eco-fanatics. My doubts, sharpened in the ‘90s over recycling’s subsidized waste and later Y2K’s overblown fears, hit a nerve. My April 14 letter drew rapid fire—readers clung to eco-faith, not facts, proving environmentalism’s a pseudo-religion. Here’s the full clash, with science to back my stand.
In college, I questioned recycling’s cost—why subsidize “valuable” trash? Burning fuel to reprocess it made no sense, though metal, newsprint, and glass might justify it. Reason didn’t matter; my heresy unleashed class-wide attacks. An older vet among young grads, I saw Tennessee’s dropout rates didn’t dent their indoctrination. This was pre-2000s warming hysteria.
John Tierney’s *New York Times* piece, “Recycling Is Garbage” (June 30, 1996), faced similar heat. He showed recycling’s economic folly and environmental burden, citing a third-grade litter hunt:
The pile of garbage included… a dozen plastic bags and two dozen pairs of plastic gloves. The cost of this recycling equipment obviously exceeded the value of the recyclable items recovered… bags and gloves would occupy more space in a landfill than the two bottles. Without realizing it, the third graders had beautifully reproduced… a grand national experiment… recycling met some emotional need… a transcendental experience, an act of moral redemption… a rite of atonement for the sin of excess… the simplest and cheapest option is usually to bury garbage in an environmentally safe landfill… there’s no shortage of landfill space (the crisis of 1987 was a false alarm)… [recycling offers] short-term benefits to… politicians, public relations consultants, environmental organizations, waste-handling corporations—while diverting money from genuine social and environmental problems.
Science won’t sway eco-zealots—it’s about control, not frogs. Environmentalism, the secular left’s post-communism religion, mimics faith’s rigidity. No proof suffices; skeptics are oil-shills, facing threats or defunding. Its rhetoric is cloaked in piety because religion sells.
Published April 14, 2007, Kingsport Times-News
The science behind global warming is clear: it’s a natural event; the climate has never been static. It’s time to consider the religion, politics, and money behind this hysteria.
James Lovelock’s *Ages of Gaia* is the unofficial bible of the environmental movement (Preface, p. 203): “I had no inkling that it would be taken as a religious book… Two-thirds of the letters received… are about the meaning of Gaia in the context of religious faith.” Further: “It is the health of the planet that matters… the people and ecosystems of the First World… [are] clearly expendable.” Michael Crichton adds: “Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists… a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.” Lovelock’s a mystic.
Environmentalism tops every socialist/communist agenda. Socialist Action (www.socialistaction.org) calls this “crisis” “the result of… profit-driven capitalism.” Earth Day’s Lenin’s birthday. The U.N. report? Eighteen scientists from 11 countries, including John Holdren (Harvard’s “Teresa and John Heinz Professor”—yes, Kerry’s wife, funder of radical-left groups), backed by Ted Turner’s U.N. Foundation. *The Salt Lake Tribune* says: “Only a (U.N.) carbon tax can stop global warming”—a self-funded world government for Third World welfare. Al Gore backs it. Reason, not false religion, must prevail. Tell Congressman Boucher “hell no” to eco-wackos, socialists, and the U.N.
Lewis Loflin, Bristol, VA
Michael Eckart, Blountville, TN
“Beware of Environmental Hysteria” (April 15) by Lewis Loflin is rife with inaccuracies. Some environmentalists are hysterical—because they care. Lovelock’s *Ages of Gaia* aimed to provoke thought and research, not serve as a religious tome—its “living organism” idea isn’t my faith. Crichton, quoted as a biologist, is a science fiction writer with an M.D. from Harvard he never used; scientists discredit his eco-writings. Loflin’s “18 scientists” for the U.N. report? Over 2,000 top earth scientists agreed on it. This reeks of Rush Limbaugh’s fact-free rants—remember his Styrofoam-is-biodegradable whopper? Check *Vanity Fair*’s May issue for real eco-insight.
The attacks came fast. Eckart’s clueless:
Refutation #1: “That Lovelock’s book was taken as… religious… is news to me.” Salon.com’s “James Lovelock, Gaia’s Grand Old Man” (Aug. 17, 2000) asked:
Your first book… was a bestseller, embraced by radical environmentalists, goddess worshippers and New Age philosophers—but not scientists… Do you think… “Biogeochemical Hypothesis”… would have gone smoother?
It’s pagan bait, not science. Lovelock’s intro to *Ages of Gaia* admits the religious nonsense shocked him.
Refutation #2: Crichton’s “not a biologist”—true, no biology degree, but his creds stack up: Harvard summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, anthropology lecturer at Cambridge, M.D., Salk Institute fellow, MIT writer. Many eco-hysteria backers aren’t climate scientists either.
Refutation #3: “Consensus of… 2,000… earth scientists”? No—600 from 40 countries, political appointees, not all climate experts. Thirty finalized it, disagreed—see Dr. Christi’s video, not *Vanity Fair*. The U.N. Climate Change Panel report was Ted Turner-funded.
Eckart parrots *Vanity Fair*’s “Green Issue” (May 2007):
P236: “GLOBAL CITIZENS… save the planet… food, movies, wine, fashion, fame, and music… 88 crusaders…” Where’s science? I’m American, not “global.”
P264: “DANTE’S INFERNO: GREEN EDITION… Bush, Crichton… nine circles of hell…” Attacks, no facts.
P266: “QUIET THUNDER… Tesla… electric wheels…” Where’s science?
P100: “RUSH TO JUDGMENT… Lampooning environmentalists as ‘wackos,’ Rush Limbaugh…” I don’t listen to Rush—Eckart’s the mimic.
Sun’s Output Increasing, Space.com, March 20, 2003
Robert Roy Britt reports Richard Willson (Columbia, NASA): Sun’s radiation up 0.05% per decade since the ‘70s—significant if century-long. “That does not mean industrial pollution has not been a significant factor… they just don’t know.” Ref: www.space.com
Mars Melt Hints at Solar Cause, National Geographic, Feb. 28, 2007
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests… a natural… cause… Habibullo Abdussamatov… says… Mars data is evidence… current global warming on Earth is… caused by changes in the sun. “The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars”… “Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution… but it cannot compete…”
Mars Could Be Undergoing Major Global Warming, New Scientist, Dec. 7, 2001
Mars is undergoing global warming… High-resolution images… show… south polar “ice” cap shrank… between two… summers… “If the trend continues… the whole cap would be evaporated in a few thousand years,” Mike Caplinger… told New Scientist… enough carbon dioxide to give Mars an atmosphere one-tenth the density of Earth’s… “from… a near vacuum with a space suit to… an oxygen mask and a heavy coat…” However, Caplinger warns it is hard to make long-term predictions using observations over such a short period.
Known since 2001, NASA’s tracked solar hikes since the ‘70s—why no front-page buzz? Why caution for Mars but hysteria for Earth? I’ll stick to science, not eco-fashion mags.
Acknowledgment: Thanks to Grok, an AI by xAI, for aiding this draft. Final edits are mine.
John Nelson Darby
Christian Premillennialism